PhrasesHub

Robbing Peter to pay Paul

    Definitions

      • using one resource to cover another debt
        In a financial sense, using money from one source to pay off a debt or expense from another source, often resulting in a never-ending cycle of borrowing and repaying.

      • taking from one person to benefit another
        In a more general sense, sacrificing or causing harm to one person or group in order to benefit another person or group.

    Examples of Robbing Peter to pay Paul

    • The company had to rob Peter to pay Paul in order to cover their unexpected expenses.

      This idiom means to use money or resources from one source to pay for something else, often resulting in a loss or inconvenience for the original source. In this example, "Peter" represents the original source of funds, and "Paul" represents the person or thing that is being paid. By using funds from Peter to pay Paul, the company is causing a loss or inconvenience to Peter in order to cover their unexpected expenses.

    • Sarah had to rob Peter to pay Paul when her car broke down and she didn't have enough money to fix it.

      In this example, Sarah is the one using funds from one source (Peter) to pay for something else (Paul, in this case, the car repair). By doing so, she may be causing a loss or inconvenience to the original source (Peter) in order to cover her unexpected expense.

    • The government is robbing Peter to pay Paul by cutting funding from education and healthcare to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.

      In this example, the government is using funds from one source (Peter, in this case, education and healthcare funding) to pay for something else (Paul, in this case, tax breaks for the wealthy). This results in a loss or inconvenience for the original source (Peter) in order to pay for something else (Paul).

    • The company had to rob Peter to pay Paul when they lost a major client and their revenue suddenly dropped.

      In this example, the company is using funds from one source (Peter, in this case, their own funds or resources) to pay for something else (Paul, in this case, their unexpected expenses) because they lost a major client and their revenue suddenly dropped. By doing so, they may be causing a loss or inconvenience to the original source (Peter) in order to cover their unexpected expense.

    • The family had to rob Peter to pay Paul when they overspent on their vacation and didn't have enough money to pay their bills.

      In this example, the family is using funds from one source (Peter, in this case, their own funds or resources) to pay for something else (Paul, in this case, their bills) because they overspent on their vacation and didn't have enough money to cover their bills. By doing so, they may be causing a loss or inconvenience to the original source (Peter) in order to cover their unexpected expense.


    Conclusion

    The idiom "robbing Peter to pay Paul" has two main meanings, both related to using one resource to cover another debt or expense. In a financial sense, it refers to the cycle of borrowing and repaying money, often resulting in a never-ending loop of debt. In a more general sense, it means sacrificing or causing harm to one person or group in order to benefit another.

    This idiom can also be used to describe a situation where the solution to one problem creates another problem. By taking from one source to cover another, the issue is not truly resolved and can lead to further complications. It can also be used to caution against short-term solutions or quick fixes that may have negative consequences in the long run.

    Origin of "Robbing Peter to pay Paul"

    The origin of this idiom can be traced back to the Bible, specifically the New Testament. In the Gospel of Matthew, there is a passage where Jesus tells the disciples to pay taxes by catching a fish and using the money found in its mouth. This was seen as a metaphor for using one resource to pay off a debt.

    The idiom was later used in the 16th century by English theologian John Wycliffe in his translation of the Bible. In the 17th century, it became a popular phrase in England, appearing in works by writers such as John Donne and John Milton. It is believed that the idiom was named after St. Peter and St. Paul, two of the most prominent figures in Christianity.

    Today, the idiom is used in both financial and non-financial contexts, often to warn against taking shortcuts or making sacrifices that may have negative consequences. It serves as a reminder to carefully consider the consequences of our actions and to avoid creating more problems in the process of solving one.